Lindell, Nate v. Moreno, Peter et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NATE LINDELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
PETER MORENO, JENNIFER FANDEL,
MICHAEL GLASS, NATHAN KENNEDY,
and ANTHONY CHURCHILL,
Defendants.
ORDER
23-cv-811-jdp
Plaintiff Nate Lindell, a state of Wisconsin prisoner proceeding without counsel, alleges
that Department of Corrections and University of Wisconsin employees retaliated against him
for complaining about harassment in an educational program run by Milwaukee Area Technical
College (MATC) in which he was participating. The court granted Lindell leave to proceed on
claims under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Dkt. 10 and Dkt. 18.
Both the corrections defendants and the UW defendants move for summary judgment.
Dkt. 43 and Dkt. 51. I previously granted Lindell an extension of the deadline to respond to
the UW defendants’ motion, Dkt. 54, and I later denied Lindell’s motion to extend his response
deadline further based on allegations of obstruction with his law library time, Dkt. 62.
Rather 	than 	respond 	with 	his 	summary 	judgment 	opposition 	materials 	by 	his
November 3 deadline, Lindell again asks for an extension of time, citing deadlines that he also
faces in several other cases that he is litigating in this court and state court. Dkt. 63; Dkt. 65;
Dkt. 72. He also moves for the court’s assistance in recruiting him counsel, Dkt. 66, and to
compel discovery from both sets of defendants, Dkt. 69.
Case: 3:23-cv-00811-jdp Document #: 73 Filed: 11/12/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Because the court prefers to resolve cases on fully briefed motions, I will grant Lindell
a short extension of his summary judgment response deadline, but I intend for that to be the
last extension that he receives. Lindell’s workload in federal and state court is the result of his
own choice to file a large number of lawsuits over a short period of time, and he has known
about the deadlines in this case since the court’s December 11, 2024 preliminary pretrial
conference.
I will deny Lindell’s motion for recruitment of counsel because he has not shown that
this case is too complex for him. His workload in other cases is not a reason to recruit him
counsel in this one, and he is a seasoned pro se litigator (he has filed more than 20 civil lawsuits
in this court alone over the past 25 years).
I will set briefing on Lindell’s motion to compel discovery. But Lindell’s motion comes
far too late to affect the summary judgment briefing schedule. Lindell must respond to
defendants’ motions for summary judgment with the materials that he has already obtained.
Because Lindell states that there have been significant delays in him receiving mail, I
will direct counsel for the corrections defendants to send prison officials an electronic copy of
this order for immediate distribution to Lindell.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time, Dkt. 63; Dkt. 65; Dkt. 72, are
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s new summary judgment response deadline is November 24,
2025. Defendants’ new reply deadline is December 9, 2025.
2. 	Plaintiff’s motion for recruitment of counsel, Dkt. 66, is DENIED without
prejudice.
Case: 3:23-cv-00811-jdp Document #: 73 Filed: 11/12/25 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	Defendants may have until November 19, 2025, to respond to plaintiff’s motion to
compel discovery, Dkt. 69. Plaintiff may have until seven days after he receives the
responses to file his reply.
4. 	Counsel for the corrections defendants are directed to send prison officials an
electronic copy of this order for immediate distribution to plaintiff.
Entered November 12, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:23-cv-00811-jdp Document #: 73 Filed: 11/12/25 Page 3 of 3